Mississippi Republicans and miscegenation

Thanks to Human Stupidity for bringing this to my attention (I later found it on Amren and a couple other blogs).  According to a recent survey, a majority of Mississippi Republicans believe that interracial marriage should be illegal:

 

Within the usual questions about candidates and whether the respondent viewed them favourably or unfavourably, the survey then asked the simple question: ‘Do you think interracial marriage should be legal or illegal?’.
While 40 per cent of respondents said interracial marriage should be legal, 46 per cent said it should be illegal – and a further 15 per cent were undecided.
For generations in the South, the issue of interracial marriage – or even interracial relationships – has been a taboo subject.
Indeed, less than 45 years ago, marriage between blacks and whites was illegal – and serious trouble lay ahead for a black man seen in the company of a woman of any race, regardless of his intentions.
Despite today’s relative enlightenment, interracial marriage is still clearly frowned upon.
Tellingly, 68 per cent of the survey’s respondents were over the age of 46, and 32 per cent were over the age of 65 – putting them firmly into the era of intolerance towards racial integration.
Only 12 per cent of respondents were between the ages of 18 and 29.
Furthermore, 40 per cent of respondents referred to themselves as ‘very conservative’ , while a further 36 per cent said they were ‘somewhat conservative’.
When concentrating on politics, the survey found Republican Mike Huckabee was popular Mississippi choice for president in 2012.

 

 

Perhaps the greatest tragedy of the 20th century was how a solid majority of Southern whites, who had racial and regional loyalty, have almost entirely lost their children and grandchildren to the anti-white agenda.  From what I gather, their children were taken from them (figuratively if not literally) by brute force.  The Federal government stepped in and forced them to send their kids to integrated schools.  Powers far greater than their own monopolized the air waves and television – then proceeded to bombard them with nonstop anti-white propaganda.  At the same time, massive population replacement took place in certain regions of the South and now Mexicans are being imported in their millions in order to dilute any vestige of regional Southern pride.  It is the calculated destruction of a people and I am reminded of my own people’s struggles during Roman rule.  At this rate, in a few short years, real white Southerners will be reduced to a pitiful remnant in nursing homes.  Do these aging Southerners not realize that now is the time to become vocal about their beliefs?  Surely they must know that each passing year diminishes any possibility of reclaiming their heritage for the future.
On another note, I’m leaving on my travels tomorrow so this will be my last post for a while – probably.  In case you’re wondering about my progress in translating The Ashkenazi Revolution, I’m at the tail end of chapter 7.

 

Posted in miscegenation | 12 Comments

The advertising racism of Target

A few months ago, I walked into my local Target, and a few other retail stores, with the express goal of tallying up how many white people are depicted on their walls, end caps etc. versus other races.  This little experiment showed me how little Target values its white customers and it convinced me to cease shopping there ever again.  Indeed, since then I have yet to set foot in a Target store.  Instead, I shop at Fred Meyers or some other competitor.  For white-friendliness, the best store to shop at here in my neck of the woods, is REI.  It is not hard to see why.
But a gentleman, who calls himself LibertarianRealist, put together a YouTube video and sent me the link.  He did a much better job at it than I could.  I recommend watching it, giving him a thumbs up, a high score or/and a positive comment.  Good job LibertarianRealist!

Posted in book/movie/video reviews and links, government/corporate discrimination against whites | 10 Comments

Feeling sorry for yourself?

Perhaps you shouldn’t; there is always somebody worse off than you – like this guy, who chose to skip the office mega-pool lottery purchase.  In hindsight, perhaps he should have bought that ticket:

A hapless state information-technology worker who usually joined his office lottery pool took a pass last week — only to learn that seven positive-thinking pals nailed a whopping $319 million Mega Millions jackpot, said a deli owner who knows the winners.
“The word is that when they were going around the office asking who wanted in on the pool, one guy said no, that he wasn’t feeling lucky,” said Jill Cook, who with husband Tom owns Cook’s Deli in Albany, where the winners are lunchtime regulars.
“They asked him twice. They said, ‘Are you sure?’ and he said yeah, he was going to pass this time. I feel horrible for him,” Jill said.
The number of players in the pool varied from week to week, she said, and the identity of the mystery loser — who could have won a $16 million after-tax share under the lottery’s lump-sum option — was as elusive as those of the big winners, who sources say worked in IT for the state Homes and Community Renewal agency.

Hmmm… 16 million dollars.  I would feel bad if I were that guy.  But still, he made the right choice.  He is no worse off than he was before and the damage is purely psychological.  He had no way of knowing what was going to happen.  No matter how you package it, state lotteries are a form of voluntary taxation.  The odds of winning the jackpot are vanishingly small.
A lot of people condemn state lotteries for their disproportionate impact upon the poor.  By some accounts, poor Americans spend 9% of their income on lottery tickets.  Of course, the MSM cannot get the word “poor” out of its collective mouth without also saying a word like “black”, “Hispanic” or “minority”.  It must be some sort of speech impediment.  In any case, the Chicago Reporter says:

In the South Side’s 60619 ZIP code area, lottery players spent more than $23 million on lottery tickets in fiscal year 2002, more than any other ZIP code in the state, according to lottery sales records. The 60619 area includes parts of the predominantly black neighborhoods of Chatham, Avalon Park, Burnside and Calumet Heights…
“Lotteries are, in essence, a form of regressive taxation that distributes wealth and resources away from those who can least afford to pay,” said Paul Street, vice-president for research and planning at the Chicago Urban League. He said he was not surprised by the Reporter’s findings. “[Lotteries] especially extract wealth from communities of color, and most particularly from African Americans.”

It is sad when manual laborers spend so much of their money gambling.  But we might look at it philosophically and say that this is a “low-I.Q. tax”.  A way for the underclasses to repay some of the benefits higher I.Q. people are forced to provide them through taxes.  A large chunk of lottery money goes into preserving the environment (or so they say).  This is a cause that most tax-payers sympathize with.
There is also a benefit to the poor who buy the tickets.  They give themselves a shimmer of hope in their otherwise dreary lives.  Far be it from me to deny them that.

Posted in libertarian thought, nurture vs. nature and I.Q. | 5 Comments

The trials of Nunavut

In 1999, the Canadian government gave autonomy to the aboriginal inhabitants of the Northeastern part of the country, the Inuit.  So far, the results have been less than promising.  The Trials of Nunavut describes the challenges of the nascent nation and some hope for its future.  It also comes with a nice slide show; be sure to check it out.
Though alcoholism, confused identity and crime plague the Inuit, their life has never been easy.  In pre-modern times, the average life-expectancy was only 35.  Now, it’s probably over 70.  So, from a purely material point of view, they are much better off now.  However, it seems certain to me that the new roads, education and jobs they crave will cost them their living culture.  The choices are their’s.  I do wonder how well informed they are in making them.

Posted in pan-nationalism and multi-culturalism | 3 Comments

The "anti-Sailer blog"

Though it’s been up for some four years now, I only just discovered a source of laughs and entertainment called:  The Steve Sailer Sucks Blog.  It’s hard to tell if the author of this blog really is a mentally challenged, clueless loser who lacks even the smallest hint of critical thought – or if he is mocking the left by embodying their tactics in his blog as a caricature.  If it is the former, then according to him, every crime committed by a white man is proof that Sailer is wrong about everything.  The author rejoices when random conservatives (or those he perceives as “conservatives”) are murdered and he believes that a Filipino woman murdering her granddaughter discredits Michelle Malkin.
Maybe someday I’ll merit the creation of a blog, by a deranged leftist hate-monger, in my honor as well.  If so, I hope it is as pathetic as the one above.  Such outbursts are good for reminding ourselves what we are up against.  Our enemies are not those of brilliant-mind, who just happen to disagree with us.  On the contrary.   The only tools at their disposal are name-calling, intimidation and ignorance.

Posted in shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 6 Comments

An interesting guest book

When I lived in Israel, I purchased a large volume from a street vendor.  It wasn’t so much the content of the book that interested me, but rather what it was used for.  It seems that it sat at the entrance of a famous synagogue, in the Northern city of Safed, for several years.  Visitors, from all over the world, used it as a guestbook.  The earliest dated signatures/ notes are from 1958 and the latest from the mid 70’s.  They are in Hebrew, English, French, Dutch, Afrikaans and Yiddish.

Treating holy books in this manner is definitely frowned upon in Judaism, but religious Jews who saw this were amused enough that a certain amount of  tolerance set in.  In case you’re wondering, the tome is a volume of Maimonedes Codex, printed in Amsterdam in the early 18th century.  It is missing the title page.  It cost me $10 at the time.

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel | 2 Comments

Black extremists not so rare

A white person who advocated the murder, or removal, of all non-whites from Europe would surely be called a “racist”.  Some might even call him a “neo-Nazi”.  Most would consider him an extremist.  But what about a black who advocates the murder, or removal, of all non-blacks from Africa?  Not just sub-Saharan Africa, but all of Africa?  Surely, there is a word for such a person other than “lunatic”.  Surely such an opinion would fall completely outside the norm even among black Africans.
And yet a certain commentator wrote the following, in a thread about blacks in Libya:

Libya is in Afrika, which means it belongs to Black skinned Afrikans ONLY !!
Not only that, but we will eradicate the entire infestation known as whites, arabs and anyone else who is not Black !!

An0ther commentator wrote:

It would be ironic when the truth comes out and the natives take back all of North Africa and also Yemen, and Saudi Arabia.
How will Arabs feel when they realize that there were but nomads and not the original natives of these lands they now call Arab lands.

By now, you might be asking, which website was this written in?  Certainly it’s an extremist and marginal site that hardly anybody visits.  I am not so sure.  These comments were posted on a site called Somalilandpress.com.  According to Alexa, it has a worldwide ranking of 716,383 and a U.S. ranking of 445,435.  94 sites link to it.  While this does not exactly make it the CNN of Somaliland, it is hardly obscure or marginal.  In a Google search for Somaliland +news, this site comes up #2, just behind Radiosomaliland.  It should be noted that the above comments have been there for a while and nobody has objected to them.  In case you’re wondering about the content of the comment that was deleted, it was an antisemitic slur – hence my sarcastic retort.  Apparently it’s perfectly alright to call for the extermination of all non-blacks in Africa and the Middle East – but anti-Semitism is verboten.
So it would seem that there are more than a few blacks who actually promote genocide against non-blacks in at least one entire continent.  Somehow, I doubt that the SPLC would seriously consider adding the above site to their “hate-group” list.
Though I hate to point out the obvious, I feel that it must be said for the benefit of ignorant people who may find their way here.  While Europeans are projected to become minorities in their own homelands within a couple of generations, there is not a single black African country where blacks are projected to ever become a minority.  So, while whites are justified in wishing to rid their homelands of foreigners (who threaten to displace them), blacks have no such argument – only hatred, extreme ignorance or both.

Posted in shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 9 Comments

Madagascar: an "African" island

Regarding the earliest human settlement of Madagascar, we read in Wikipedia:

Evidence from faunal extinctions supports this tradition that Madagascar was inhabited prior to the Austronesian immigration. There remain a group of hunter-gatherers on Madagascar, the Mikea, which in their way of life and in their music are completely unlike their Malagasy neighbors. They retained non-Malagasy vocabulary until the 1920s, perhaps a remnant of a Vazimba language.[1]
However, archaeologists generally place the arrival of humans on Madagascar in the centuries between 300 BCE and 500CE, when seafarers from southeast Asia (Borneo or the southern Celebes) are believed to have arrived in their outrigger canoes.[2] These were the original Malagasy, who came to the island as part of the great Austronesian expansion, the movement of people that came to dominate in Indonesia and the Pacific Ocean. Anthropologist Jared Diamond has written about the Austronesian expansion to Madagascar, noting many similarities between Malagasy and Indonesians (both cultures cultivating rice in a similar manner and using outrigger canoes, for instance) and differences between Malagasy and Africans (Malagasy architectural traditions favoring rectangular structures as opposed to African round huts, and wearing cloth (lambas) woven of vegetable fibers as opposed to African animal skins and bark cloth, for instance). Jared Diamond writes of the Austronesians:

“These Austronesians, with their Austronesian language and modified Austronesian culture, were already established on Madagascar by the time it was first visited by Europeans, in 1500. This strikes me as the single most astonishing fact of human geography for the entire world. It’s as if Columbus, on reaching Cuba, had found it occupied by blue-eyed, blond-haired Scandinavians speaking a language close to Swedish, even though the nearby North American continent was inhabited by Native Americans speaking Amerindian languages.

In summery nobody knows, for certain, who first settled Madagascar.  As for the Mikea “remnants”, it is possible that they arrived, or were brought over, later.  We don’t know.  But the consensus is that the Indonesians arrived first.



As we can see from the map, Borneo is about 4,500 miles away from Madagascar, while Africa is only 250 miles away.  The obvious question is:  How is it that populations from so far away were able to settle the island before Africans – or, in any event, to culturally dominate the Africans?  Mongabay.com writes…

The striking mix suggests that there was substantial migration of people from southeast Asia about 2000-1500 years ago – a mirror image of the migrations from that region into the Pacific, to Micronesia and Polynesia, that had occurred about 1000 years earlier. However, unlike the privations suffered by those eastward travellers, the data suggests the early Malagasy population survived the voyage well, because more genetic variation is found in them than is found in the islands of Polynesia. ‘Bottlenecks’ in evolutionary history, where the population is dramatically reduced in number, are a common cause of reduced genetic variation.
Even though the Africa coast is only one-twentieth of the distance to Indonesia, it appears that migrations from Africa may have been more limited, as less of the diversity seen in the source population has survived in Madagascar.
But why, if the population is a 50:50 mix, is the language almost exclusively derived from Indonesia?
“It is a very interesting question, for which we have as yet no certain answer, as to how the African contribution to Malagasy culture, evident in biology and in aspects of economic and material culture, was so largely erased in the realm of language,” commented Professor Robert Dewar, of The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge. “This research highlights the differing, and complementary, contributions of biology and linguistics to the understanding of prehistory.”

To answer to Mongabay’s question, it might be useful to look at the average I.Q. in Indonesia versus the average I.Q. in East Africa.  According to “I.Q. and the wealth of nations“, by Richard Lynn, Indonesia has an average I.Q. of 89, while East African nations hover at just over 70.  This is a larger difference than we find between American whites and American blacks.  So it is no wonder the Indonesians would dominate the Africans culturally or, at least, linguistically.
As I’ve already mentioned, I’ll be travelling there shortly.  I’ll also be travelling to other places and, all told, I’ll be gone a month.  Needless to say, I won’t be doing much blogging during that time.  I’ll be leaving April 10th and, between work and preparations, my posts may be a bit sparse during this time as well.

Posted in racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science | 28 Comments

Mirror mirror on the wall…

“… who is the fairest of them all?”  At which point the mirror replied to the queen, “what do you mean, fair?  Do you mean light-skinned or do you mean pretty?  And why do you use a word than can mean either… are you a racist?”  Well, that’s not exactly how the story of Snow White goes, but it might have had it been written today.  The word “fair” has several meanings, among which are “pretty” and “light-skinned”.  These two meanings often go hand in hand, as we see in the fable of Snow White:

Once upon a time as a queen sits sewing at her window, she pricks her finger on her needle and three drops of blood fall on the snow that had fallen on her ebony window frame. As she looks at the blood on the snow, she says to herself, “Oh, how I wish that I had a daughter that had skin white as snow, lips red as blood, and hair black as ebony”. Soon after that, the queen gives birth to a baby girl who has skin white as snow, lips red as blood, and hair black as ebony. They name her Princess Snow White. As soon as the child is born, the queen dies…

We also see this in the Song of Songs:

My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand.
His head is as the most fine gold, his locks are bushy, and black as a raven.
His eyes are as the eyes of doves by the rivers of waters, washed with milk, and fitly set.
His cheeks are as a bed of spices, as sweet flowers: his lips like lilies, dropping sweet smelling myrrh.
His hands are as gold rings set with the beryl: his belly is as bright ivory overlaid with sapphires.
His legs are as pillars of marble, set upon sockets of fine gold: his countenance is as Lebanon, excellent as the cedars.

While fair skin is not a prerequisite for beauty, it certainly helps in most cultures.  Much has already been written about this and, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I’ll point out that men all over the world prefer their women to be light-skinned.  American blacks are, of course, no exception.  Simple observation will confirm that, among black couples, the woman is far more likely to be light-skinned than the man.  Among white/black couples, the woman is far more likely to be white.
Hand in hand with light skin, childlike features also add to a woman’s attractiveness.   Here is a study that looks at childlike features in women and gauges their attractiveness.  It concludes:

For each set of female faces, the test subjects were asked to indicate  which version they found most attractive. The results of this experiment show clearly that childlike characteristics (large, round eyes, a large curved forehead as well as small short nose and chin) can enhance attractiveness. Only very few (9,5%) test subjects rated mature “original women” as being most attractive. Most of the preferred female faces contained childlike proportions of 10 – 50% (for details see report!). This means that even the most attractive women become even more beautiful, if facial proportions are made more childlike. And again: women who were rated as being most attractive do not exist in reality!

So, if childlike women are more attractive, and lighter-skinned women are also considered more attractive, does this mean that lighter-skinned children are considered more cute?  I think they are.  One afro-centric website asks the question, “are light skinned children treated better?”  It is interesting to read the replies.  An afro-centric blog post states:

In my comments on Laina’s post, “CNN Reports That More Single
Black Women Are Adopting – But Who Are They Taking Home?,”
I said, “I’m wondering, are ready for a child if you’re not ready
for yourself? They’re treating dark skin like it’s a physical
handicap.” And to another person’s comment I responded, “India
also has colorism issues. It seems that areas colonized by Great
Britain carry this burden more often to me. In Asia the self-hate
and desire to look like the conquerer comes out in weeping over
having slanted eyes instead of round.”
Colorism is one more bad effect of racism and the promotion of
white skin, blond hair, and blue eyes as superior. It is not the
focus of the CNN article, which seems to be connected to CNN’s
Black in America 2 special. The article is about single black
women adopting in general and mentions in briefly that some
black women show a preference for babies with lighter-skin:
Yet, there are some single African-American women who are not
emotionally ready to adopt an African-American child who is too
dark, some adoption agency officials say.
Fair-skinned or biracial children stand a better chance of being
adopted by single black women than darker-skinned children,
some adoption officials say.

The poster blames the phenomenon on racism.  But, If we see a preference for light skin across various cultures and continents, then Occam’s razor would categorize this preference as a universal human trait and not a byproduct of racism.
Katti Gray, in The Root, struggles with the disproportionate occurrence of abuse among black children.  She looks at the traditional explanation of “racist social workers” and finds no evidence of it.  Then, lacking the fortitude to consider innate racial explanations, she resorts to the catch-all explanation of “poverty”:

Rates of reported child abuse are disproportionately high for black children, a fact that has long been linked to suspected racial bias by a largely white child-protection workforce. But a recently released study by Washington University researchers debunks that allegation, citing poverty as the main reason black children are twice as likely as white children to suffer abuse…

While it is certainly true that poor parents have fewer options than wealthy parents, it is highly debatable if poor parents love their children less than wealthy parents.  One could even argue that a poor person who chooses to have a baby is willing to sacrifice more for her child than a wealthy person, who can pawn off the difficulties to babysitters and nannies.  But this is an argument best made by leftist equalitarians, not by me; I do not think that most poor babies are planned.  They just happen.
In reality, low I.Q. is an underlying cause for both unplanned babies and for neglecting/abusing those babies later on.  Gray, I suspect, cannot bring this up even if she knows it.
But another cause, for the racial disparity in child abuse, is that black kids are simply not as cute as white kids.  Therefore, their parents tend to treat them less well.  Now, if I walked up to a random stranger and said, “black kids are less cute than white kids”, I would be lucky to avoid being assaulted.  But this is one of those subjects where we’re almost there.  It is not controversial to point out that childlike women are more attractive than mature-looking women.  It is not controversial to point out that light skin is universally held to be more attractive than dark skin (among women).   It is not controversial to point out that women, even black women, prefer lighter skinned children.  So why would it be controversial to point out that darker children (I.E. black children) are not as cute as lighter children*?  Once we shed the burden of social propriety, our mystery is solved.
* Of course, individual preferences will vary.  Take me, for example.  I consider some dark-skinned children, including my own, to be among the cutest.

Posted in crime and violence, racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science | 11 Comments

The "criminal look"

Kiwiguy recently linked to an article in Psychology Today that claims people can ascertain the criminality of a person, somewhat accurately, just by looking at him.

Criminals Look Different From Noncriminals

Yes, once again, you CAN judge a book by its cover
Published on March 13, 2011
by Satoshi Kanazawa
As it turns out, humans possess the ability to tell who’s a criminal and who’s not simply by looking at them because criminals look different from noncriminals.In this blog, I have repeatedly emphasized the fact that virtually all “stereotypes” are empirically true.  If they weren’t true, they would not be stereotypes in the first place.  To my knowledge, all of the very, very few stereotypes that are not empirically true, for some reason, have to do with people’s appearance.  Hence, it is not true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and it is not true that beauty is only skin-deep.
Another “stereotype” about physical appearance that is not empirically true is “you can’t judge a book by its cover.” In previous posts, I have explained that women can tell which men would make good fathers and which men would make bad fathers simply by looking at them.  And people can tell who are altruistic and who are egoistic simply by looking at a 30-second video clip without sound.
So, contrary to popular belief, you can assess people’s character and personality by simply looking at them.  Nice people look nice, and nasty people look nasty, and it appears that humans have innate psychological mechanisms to tell them apart…
The article proceeds to show us the photos of 32 young males, all with neutral expressions and all looking directly ahead.  These were the test subjects and half of them have criminal pasts.  The author tells us that race may complicate matters.  Well… he doesn’t actually come out and say that, but he implies it by being careful to include only white men in the study.  He also implies that age and gender may complicate matters.  After all, they are all young and all male.
I spent some time staring at the above faces trying to figure out what it is about them that allows us to determine the character of those who wear them.  The closest thing I could come up with, that might qualify as a hypothesis, is the “South Park Reverse Eye Brow Tactic” or S.P.R.E.B.T.  In South Park (and other comics) an evil person is readily recognizable by his sinister eyebrows and narrowed eyes.
 

South Park bully

A real criminal

People who walk around like South Park bullies in real life are probably just trying to make themselves look intimidating and macho.  Real criminals, who are smart enough to compensate and try to fool people into trusting them, will purposefully raise their eyebrows and widen their eyes to give the impression of innocence.
Just a bunch of malarkey from somebody who knows nothing about psychology?  Perhaps.  Look at the photos and judge for yourself.

Posted in crime and violence | 19 Comments